Skip to comments.EPA proposed new rule to garnish wages for non-tax debts
Posted on 07/19/2014 10:54:52 AM PDT by The Bat Lady
This Proposed Rule document was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
For related information, Open Docket Folder Docket folder icon Action
Proposed rule. Summary
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend EPA's claims collection standards to include administrative wage garnishment. This rule amends the EPA's debt collection regulations to implement the administrative wage garnishment (AWG) provisions of the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA). The proposed rule will allow the EPA to garnish non-Federal wages to collect delinquent non-tax debts owed the United States without first obtaining a court order. In the Rules and Regulations section of thisFederal Registerwe are approving an amendment to EPA's regulations on claims collection standards by using administrative wage garnishment as a direct final rule without a prior proposed rule. If we receive no adverse comment, the direct final rule will go into effect and we will not take further action on this proposed rule. Dates
Written comments must be received by August 1, 2014. Addresses
Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
1. Email: email@example.com.
2. Fax: (202) 565-2585.
3. Mail: OCFO-2014-0001; FRL-9910-13-OCFO, FPPS c/o Anita Jones, OCFO/OFM/FPPS, Mailcode 2733R, Environmental Protection Agency, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Comments may be submitted electronically by following the detailed instructions in theADDRESSESsection of the direct final rule located in the rules section of thisFederal Register. For Further Information Contact
FPPS c/o Anita Jones, OCFO/OFM/FPPS, Mailcode 2733R, Environmental Protection Agency, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-4969; fax number: (202) 565-2585; email address: firstname.lastname@example.org. Supplementary Information Background
This proposed rule implements the administrative wage garnishment provisions in section 31001(o) of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of the 1996 (DCIA), Public Law 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-358, codified as 31 U.S.C. 3720D. Under the administrative wage garnishment provisions of the DCIA, Federal agencies may garnish administratively up to 15 percent of the disposal pay of a debtor to satisfy a delinquent non-tax debt owed to the United States. Prior to the enactment of the DCIA, Federal agencies were required to obtain a court judgment before garnishing non-Federal wages. Section 31001(o) of the DCIA preempts State laws that prohibit wage garnishment or otherwise govern wage garnishment procedures.
As authorized by the DCIA, a Federal agency collecting a delinquent non-tax debt may garnish a delinquent debtor's wages in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Bureau of Fiscal Services, a bureau of the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), is responsible for promulgating the regulations implementing this and other debt collection tools established by the DCIA. The Bureau of Fiscal Services published its final rule at 63 FR 25136, May 6 1998, (Treasury Final Rule) and published technical amendments at 64 FR 22906, 22908, April 28, 1999 and 66 FR 51867, 51868, October 11, 2001. The Treasury Final Rule, as amended, is published in § 285.11 of title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Pursuant to 31 CFR 285.11 (f), Federal agencies must either prescribe regulations for the conduct of AWG hearings consistent with the procedural requirements set forth in the Treasury Final Rule or adopt § 285.11 without change by reference. Basic Provisions
In accordance with the requirements of the DCIA and the implementing regulations at 31 CFR 285.11, the EPA is adopting the provisions of 31 CFR 285.11concerning administrative wage garnishment, including the hearing procedures described in 31 CFR 285.11(f). Use of the Direct Final Rule
This document proposes to take action on amending EPA's regulations on claims collection standards by using administrative wage garnishment. We have published a direct final rule amending EPA's regulations on claims collection standards by using administrative wage garnishment in the Rules and Regulations section of today'sFederal Registerbecause we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for thisaction in the preamble to the direct final rule.
If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.
We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in theADDRESSESsection of this document.
I think they need to receive adverse comments
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
Sounds like the Obamacare payment garnishment !
Can you read the rule to find out.
The ‘non-tax’ part throws me, but then these idiots are probably still calling it a non-tax despite the Supreme court ruling.
Only to perhaps receive the reply “what’s that? I can’t seem to hear you.”
Some bureaucrat writes a memo and it carries the rule of law?
I thought only Congress could create laws.
The EPA Marxist need to be slapped silly.
They take your money if you water your lawn and they take your money if you don’t water your lawn and they take your money if you don’t have a lawn
A move towards direct dictatorial rule, Guilty until proven innocent.
I’m thinking the “non-tax” part is fines the EPA throws on citizens for whatever.
This damn regime is so out of control.
A move towards direct dictatorial rule, Guilty until proven innocent.
Every dictatorial power is now hastily being moved by the Federal bureaucrats under their now unlimited “Taxing” power. AKA power to impose whatever will they want.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Deadline: 08/01. Let’s do it.
Perhaps but it seems they now have the power to slap anyone who dares stand against them silly with the now boundless power of taxation into slavery.
Every dictatorial power is now hastily being moved by the Federal bureaucrats under their now unlimited “Taxing” power. AKA power to impose whatever will they want. Follow not the edicts of Washington and you shall not be able to earn a living. Indeed everything you own will be taken from you by the dictatorship.
This may be just about the last warring that freedom is just about out the door of this country.
EPA and Homeland Security...the new Gestapo.
Why don’t they just go ahead and garnish all wages, then redistribute EBT cards with amounts based on the recipients’ loyalty to the Welfare State? That’s where they want to go with this, anyway...
This was already withdrawn, IIRC from another FR post.
They always try to sneak ‘em in again.
“The EPA Marxist need to be slapped silly.”
No, Taking a page from their own book, they need to be sent to re-education camps where they will either live out the remainder of their worthless lives doing hard labor (no doubt, for the first time in their lives) or until they can espouse every single word, concept, and idea of the US Constitution - and believe in it.
Supreme Court Rules That CERCLA Does Not Preempt State Statutes of Repose By Brian Ferrasci-OMalley July 8, 2014
- See more at: http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20140708-cercla-does-not-preempt-state-statutes#sthash.C4WKZgu7.dpuf
So much for 5th amendment substantive due process.
Illegal invaders, yes; Americans, not so much.
The other problem is that the EPA issues massive fines, thousands of dollars a day, for modest and even trivial violations.
The irony was that the pushed this proposal to garnish without a trial, after the Supreme Court ruling 9-0 a few months ago that said you can’t demand compliance and fines prior to a hearing.
Now they want the money before you may get a hearing, by which point you have no funds to defend yourself.
Your right, I guess they don’t want people to even be able to challenge the EPA assuming they had the finances to for a legal challenge in the first place.